From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18795 invoked by alias); 26 Nov 2007 21:09:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 18779 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Nov 2007 21:09:21 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.33.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:09:17 +0000 Received: from zps37.corp.google.com (zps37.corp.google.com [172.25.146.37]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id lAQL98mJ024228 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:09:09 GMT Received: from an-out-0708.google.com (anac31.prod.google.com [10.100.54.31]) by zps37.corp.google.com with ESMTP id lAQL8kX6027852 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:09:08 -0800 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id c31so139133ana for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:09:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.100.44.4 with SMTP id r4mr4784105anr.1196111347929; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:09:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from dhcp-172-19-57-166.corp.google.com ( [172.19.57.166]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b14sm2674638ana.2007.11.26.13.09.05 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:09:06 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <474B35E7.80802@google.com> Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:34:00 -0000 From: Diego Novillo User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Mitchell CC: William Maddox , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Nathan Froyd Subject: Re: [LTO] Patch to implement -flto-single (-flto-test) switch in gcc driver References: <8a0e66f0711202339r1df5fcdfpb4e6ffd7c4619e4@mail.gmail.com> <474A19BD.3070401@codesourcery.com> <474A6B7F.1040403@google.com> <474AF896.2070005@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <474AF896.2070005@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-11/txt/msg01419.txt.bz2 Mark Mitchell wrote: > So, do you think we still need -flto-single? It's purpose was to > facilitate testing; if you've already managed to get the testsuite to > pass -flto at compile-time and at link-time, then do we still think > -flto-single is worthwhile? I'm not really thrilled with it, but it may be useful in that in the beginning it will allow more tests to go through. Since each file is compiled to final object code using LTO independently, we don't run into the multi-file combination problems. But I don't know if that is a good enough reason to keep this flag. It won't be around for very long. If people find it useful, I don't mind adding it. Diego.